What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[Ahab]

I know those aren't 'official' or anything but from my experience some LDS believe that and yet want to use language to disguise it. Until the couple of quotes provided above I have never encountered any LDS who will out right say Mary was a virgin after she gave birth - they are good to see.

still a virgin after she gave birth to Jesus... meaning before she had sexual relations with a mortal and before she had another child, with the first one coming as a result of God planting the seed within Mary... yes, I believe that.

She had other children with Joseph, though, and after the first one from him she was no longer a virgin unless "virgin" is understood to mean a "young woman"... which is what it generally meant when it was generally understood that young women didn't have sexual relations before marriage.

[Akboy]

Have you ever even used a map? Look at the different routes to get to the same place. Even go on mapquest and it will give you alternate routes. Narrow is the way is talking about the principles of following in Christ's footsteps, which include charity, forgiveness, judging wrongly etc.

Yes, but there is more than one destination on the map. If you get inaccurate directions, how can you end up at the destination? If Christ's message was 'Follow me by doing A, B and C to get to the destination,' yet I try to follow Him by doing X, Y and Z, why would I still end up at the destination?

That doesn't address the issue in Matt. 7.

¹³ Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. ¹⁴ For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

It certainly doesn't sound like a wide range of routes lead to the destination. Since the gate is narrow, you need to actually follow Christ through it. If someone is following a gospel that is leading them to destruction, what good does it do for me to call them Christian?

??? How is presenting one's beliefs judging someone else? However when you use those beliefs to claim that you are fit to judge others as to their worthiness then you are on a dangerous path.

It's happened many times. I say something like 'I think the gospel means following Christ by doing A, B and C,' and some LDS responds by saying 'I disagree. Following Christ means doing X, Y and Z.' Generally, no one has a problem with that, but when I even suggest that someone not following the gospel won't be saved, people accuse me of judging. Well what am I supposed to think? I believe the gospel is ABC, not XYZ. Am I supposed to pretend I believe XYZ is also the gospel just so I don't offend people? Am I supposed to ignore my beliefs that say people not following the gospel won't be saved? What's the point of having these discussions at all if we can't make logical conclusions based on our beliefs?

Article of Faith number 5 explains a bit about the LDS belief in the absolute need for authority from God before being able to speak for God:

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

Every man in the church who claims such authority has (or should have) a piece of paper which shows his 'line of authority'. This shows where his authority came from, where the authority of the man who laid hands on him came from, etc, etc, all the way back to Peter, James, and John, who of course received their authority from Christ Himself.

All missionaries must receive this same authority before they can try to teach other people in God's name.

You could be a direct descendant Joseph Smith or President Monson and I wouldn't recognize your scriptural authority. I'm not talking about some paper that says you have a line of authority. I'm talking about a theological, philosophical reason to trust you. Why should I believe what you say about the Bible?

Can you show that the bible supports your notion that authority can come from studying the scriptures? Is your claim to authority biblical?

For starters, this verse certainly comes to mind. 2 Tim. 3:16-17

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Can you show that the bible supports the idea that you need a line of authority to tell people about the gospel you believe?

Edited August 2, 2012 by Akboy

[KevinG]

Lets get to the heart of the matter.

Since you are preaching to Mormons- what is it in Mormonism that you believe has taken them "off the map" and is leading them to destruction.

What specifically is it that negates their faith in Jesus Christ's atonement to the point they are going to hell.

I tire of this using semantics and dancing around the insulting accusation that we are going to hell or that we don't really believe in the correct Jesus.

[Vance]

For starters, this verse certainly comes to mind. 2 Tim. 3:16-17

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

WOW!!! I am still looking to find ANYTHING about authority in those verses.

Maybe I need to put on some 21st Century American Protestant Evangelical blinders glasses to find it.

Can you show that the bible supports the idea that you need a line of authority to tell people about the gospel you believe?

I don't think anyone is making the claim that "you need a line of authority to tell people about the gospel".

But hey! Don't let that slow down your strawman fabricating operation.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Vance

[bluebell]

You could be a direct descendant Joseph Smith or President Monson and I wouldn't recognize your scriptural authority.

Being a direct descendant doesn't impact one's authority to speak for Christ in any way. It's not something you are born with.

Besides that though, of course you shouldn't take my word for it! I never asked you to.

I'm not talking about some paper that says you have a line of authority. I'm talking about a theological, philosophical reason to trust you. Why should I believe what you say about the Bible?

Looking for a theological reason to trust someone is pretty shaking ground to stand on.

Where do philosophers and theologians get their authority from? They take their authority upon themselves ("I have authority because i say i do"), or they get it from a university, which also has no authority from Christ.

If you want to know whether or not someone has authority from God to teach you His word, study in the bible how such authority is given, then test the person or institution to see if their claims to authority are biblical or not.

That's a good place to start.

Since the bible is your standard, this seems like a no-brainer.

For starters, this verse certainly comes to mind. 2 Tim. 3:16-17

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

This doesn't say that authority comes from reading the scriptures. It says that the scriptures are a useful tool for the servants of God to use when teaching people. It doesn't address at all how someone becomes a servant of God.

Can you show that the bible supports the idea that you need a line of authority to tell people about the gospel you believe?

I'm sorry if i've been unclear.

I don't think someone has to have a line of authority just to share their beliefs with another person-a 5 year old can do that (my 10 year old is a pro!). But when you approach someone who is reading the bible and tell them 'you follow the wrong Jesus' you've got to have something backing you up other than your opinion and the opinions of other mortal men.

There has to be some legitimate way for a person to know which opinion--of the thousands which exist concerning the gospel as preached in the bible--is the right one. Knowing who to listen to is a step that can't be skipped.

As for your question about the bible says about the need for authority-

• I have sent thee, Ex. 3:12–15
  
• Speak all that I command thee, Ex. 7:2
  
• He gave the twelve disciples power, Matt. 10:1
  
• Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, John 15:16
  
• He laid his hands upon him and gave him a charge, Num. 27:23
  
• Paul was called to be an Apostle, Rom. 1:1
  
• No man takes this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, Heb. 5:4
  
• Jesus was called of God after the order of Melchizedek, Heb. 5:10
  
• Peter received the keys of the kingdom, Matt. 16:19
  

Notice that being a theologian or philosopher to get authority from God does not make the list.

The bible is as clear as it gets. No one is allowed to speak for God unless commanded by God personally, or they have received power from Him or His servants.

Edited August 2, 2012 by bluebell

[Akboy]

Lets get to the heart of the matter.

Since you are preaching to Mormons- what is it in Mormonism that you believe has taken them "off the map" and is leading them to destruction.

What specifically is it that negates their faith in Jesus Christ's atonement to the point they are going to hell.

I tire of this using semantics and dancing around the insulting accusation that we are going to hell or that we don't really believe in the correct Jesus.

I believe following the gospel means relying on the atonement, Christ's payment for our sins, 100% for our salvation. If we mix our own effort or works in with that, then we're not completely relying on Christ. So what are we supposed to believe when we see teachings like 'we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do'? If we rely on what 'we can do,' then we're not completely relying on grace.

WOW!!! I am still looking to find ANYTHING about authority in those verses.

Maybe I need to put on some 21st Century American Protestant Evangelical blinders glasses to find it.

Well American Protestant Evangelicals typically don't use terms like 'authority.' What am I missing about the concept? What's the difference between having 'authority' and studying the Bible for 'teaching, rebuking, correcting, training in righteousness and every good work'?

I don't think anyone is making the claim that "you need a line of authority to tell people about the gospel".

But hey! Don't let that slow down your strawman fabricating operation.

Like I said earlier in that post, it's happened many times. I say something like 'I think the gospel means following Christ by doing A, B and C,' and some LDS responds by saying 'I disagree. Following Christ means doing X, Y and Z.' Generally, no one has a problem with that, but when I even suggest that someone not following the gospel won't be saved, people accuse me of judging. Well what am I supposed to think? I believe the gospel is ABC, not XYZ. Am I supposed to pretend I believe XYZ is also the gospel just so I don't offend people? Am I supposed to ignore my beliefs that say people not following the gospel won't be saved? What's the point of having these discussions at all if we can't make logical conclusions based on our beliefs?

[bluebell]

Well American Protestant Evangelicals typically don't use terms like 'authority.' What am I missing about the concept? What's the difference between having 'authority' and studying the Bible for 'teaching, rebuking, correcting, training in righteousness and every good work'?

It's the difference between reading the traffic laws and then going out and setting up your lawn chair on the curb and trying to hand out speeding tickets, and being a police officer.

Both you and the officer may know the law, but only the officer has authority to act in the name of the City or the State.

[Akboy]

The bible is as clear as it gets. No one is allowed to speak for God unless commanded by God personally, or they have received power from Him or His servants.

Woah, let's back up a minute. Have you actually heard any evangelical or protestant claim to speak for God?

It's the difference between reading the traffic laws and then going out and setting up your lawn chair on the curb and trying to hand out speeding tickets, and being a police officer.

You're either misunderstanding the protestant message or you're using a strawman argument. We are NOT saying you're going to hell because we say so. We're not saying God told us you're going to hell. This is what we're saying: According to what we believe about the gospel and following Christ, the LDS gospel isn't following Christ and is leading people off the narrow path and to destruction.

We've read the traffic laws and and believe we're following them. So if I see a friend driving dangerously according to my understanding of the law, shouldn't I warn them that if they keep driving like that, they'll get a nasty ticket, maybe even get their license taken away?

There has to be some legitimate way for a person to know which opinion--of the thousands which exist concerning the gospel as preached in the bible--is the right one. Knowing who to listen to is a step that can't be skipped.

Are you talking about the call to prayer in Moroni 10:4-5? Is that how you know which one is the right one?

This doesn't say that authority comes from reading the scriptures. It says that the scriptures are a useful tool for the servants of God to use when teaching people. It doesn't address at all how someone becomes a servant of God.

So can I use my understanding of the scriptures to teach LDS what I believe about the gospel and salvation? Edited August 2, 2012 by Akboy

[volgadon]

Can anyone else explain how Deuteronomy isn't saying there is only 1 God in the heavens and Earth.

"Harken, O Israel, YHWH your god is one YHWH." Why don't we change the names and titles a bit. "George your father is one George." Does this mean that there are no other fathers in existence? Look at Deut. 6:14. Other gods, a temptation to YHWH's followers. How is YHWH to be jealous of something that doesn't exist?

These texts are a useful start in seeing how "one" did not mean "negates the possibility of anything else even existing." http://calba-savua.blogspot.com/2010/07/monotheistic-declarations.html

Moshe Weinfeld, in his book The Decalogue and the Recitation of "Shema": The Development of the Confessions, points out (pg. 128) that all these texts are hymnodal-liturgical, and that the Shema is confessional-liturgical.

On page 130 Weinfeld states that, "there appears to be a deep connection between the definition of God as 'one' and the obligation to love him." He provides two passages from the Hebrew Bible which make the connection obvious.

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest...

-Genesis 22:2.

My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her...

-Song of Solomon 6:9.

Isaac, if you'll recall, had a brother. He was not Abraham's only son, if we are to take the term in our, modern sense. The importance of the Shema was not as a declaration of monotheism- other verses would have been better suited- it was a demand to love God. I had a children's book about R. Akiva. Tradition has it that the timing of his execution coincided with the hour set for reciting the Shema. As he was tortured with iron rakes, R. Akiva insisted upon following a commandment in its set time, thus declaring his great love for God.

[Darren10]

Akboy #252;

Good grief. Drop it already. If the theological Christian path to God is to do X,Y, and Z than Mormons fully believe in asnd are taught to follow path X,Y, and Z respectively. If they excercise their moral agency correctly than they are Christians. (Theologically-speaking, they are already Christians).

[Darren10]

You're either misunderstanding the protestant message or you're using a strawman argument. We are NOT saying you're going to hell because we say so. We're not saying God told us you're going to hell. This is what we're saying: According to what we believe about the gospel and following Christ, the LDS gospel isn't following Christ and is leading people off the narrow path and to destruction.

So, Mormons who are true to their faith until the end of their lives will go where exactly? The LDS believe that the full gospel of Jesus Christ will be taught at some point in time if not in this life than in the next life. Do Evangelicals believe this (I know they don't)? If not then what happens to those who lived their entire lives "off the narrow path and to destruction". (Careful of your wording, you'll scare the women).

[bluebell]

Woah, let's back up a minute. Have you actually heard any evangelical or protestant claim to speak for God?

You and other have said repeatedly that I follow the wrong Jesus and am following a treasure map leading away from Him. If you don't believe you are telling me what God would tell me if He were here, then why waste my time?

We are NOT saying you're going to hell because we say so. We're not saying God told us you're going to hell. This is what we're saying: According to what we believe about the gospel and following Christ, the LDS gospel isn't following Christ and is leading people off the narrow path and to destruction.

Interesting.

So, basically, you are telling me 'you are following a different Jesus, based on our opinion of scripture'?

Hmmm...that's incredibly underwhelming. And yet, refreshing. I'm not much for religions based on opinion with no claimed authority to speak for God or teach me His gospel, but it's nice to know.



We've read the traffic laws and and believe we're following them. So if I see a friend driving dangerously according to my understanding of the law, shouldn't I warn them that if they keep driving like that, they'll get a nasty ticket, maybe even get their license taken away?

Sure.

As long as you end with 'this is only my opinion of course-you know as much as i do about the law,' i think it's honorable to try to help each other arrive 'home' safely.

Are you talking about the call to prayer in Moroni 10:4-5? Is that how you know which one is the right one?

No, i'm talking about studying the bible, pondering what it says specifically about authority, and comparing it to how the religion you espouse treats authority and teaching God's word.

And then following James 1:5 and asking God for the wisdom to know His will on the matter.

So can I use my understanding of the scriptures to teach LDS what I believe about the gospel and salvation?

You bet.

As long as you don't do it from a position of 'knowing' you are doing God's will but just that you are sharing your opinions based on what you've read, i think it's great and appreciate the effort.

Edited August 2, 2012 by bluebell

[Zakuska]

You're either misunderstanding the protestant message or you're using a strawman argument. We are NOT saying you're going to hell because we say so. We're not saying God told us you're going to hell. This is what we're saying: According to what we believe about the gospel and following Christ, the LDS gospel isn't following Christ and is leading people off the narrow path and to destruction.

We have read the same manual and come to different conclusions than you do.

The question remains... what gives you the right to claim we are not Christian?

[Akboy]

Good grief. Drop it already. If the theological Christian path to God is to do X,Y, and Z than Mormons fully believe in asnd are taught to follow path X,Y, and Z respectively. If they excercise their moral agency correctly than they are Christians. (Theologically-speaking, they are already Christians).

What? That doesn't address any of the questions I was bringing up. Could you try reading the paragraph again?

So, Mormons who are true to their faith until the end of their lives will go where exactly? The LDS believe that the full gospel of Jesus Christ will be taught at some point in time if not in this life than in the next life. Do Evangelicals believe this (I know they don't)? If not then what happens to those who lived their entire lives "off the narrow path and to destruction". (Careful of your wording, you'll scare the women).

Correct, we don't believe non-Christians will be taught the gospel in the next life. We believe people who aren't following the gospel will face eternal punishment, eternal destruction, eternal fire along with the devil and his angels.

[volgadon]

Correct, we don't believe non-Christians will be taught the gospel in the next life. We believe people who aren't following the gospel will face eternal punishment, eternal destruction, eternal fire along with the devil and his angels.

Does that include those who weren't taught, or who were set such a bad example that they turned away?

[Zakuska]

Correct, we don't believe non-Christians will be taught the gospel in the next life. We believe people who aren't following the gospel will face eternal punishment, eternal destruction, eternal fire along with the devil and his angels.

So who exactly was Christ preaching the Gospel to in these verses?

1 Peter 3

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Why in the world is the Gospel being preached in hell?

Edited August 3, 2012 by Zakuska

[bluebell]

Does that include those who weren't taught, or who were set such a bad example that they turned away?

Great question.

What do Evangelicals believe will happen to the person who God decided would be born in the Amazon rain forest and live a life where they never even hear the name of Jesus Christ, let alone have an opportunity to have faith in Him?

[altersteve]

Correct, we don't believe non-Christians will be taught the gospel in the next life. We believe people who aren't following the gospel will face eternal punishment, eternal destruction, eternal fire along with the devil and his angels.

What about someone who never got the chance to hear the gospel? This person lived 2,000 years ago in Australia when Jesus was going about doing good in Palestine, so how can you expect them to hear Jesus' message of salvation? There's no way they could have. So instead of giving them a chance at all, God's just going to say, "Eh, not my problem," and just give them "eternal punishment, eternal destruction, eternal fire along with the devil and his angels"? Yikes. That's not a very loving God at all. Or did He just forget about them?

[Akboy]

We have read the same manual and come to different conclusions than you do.

The question remains... what gives you the right to claim we are not Christian?

If someone is following a gospel that is leading them to destruction, what good does it do for me to call them Christian?

You and other have said repeatedly that I follow the wrong Jesus and am following a treasure map leading away from Him. If you don't believe you are telling me what God would tell me if He were here, then why waste my time?

What are we supposed to do? If I believe your gospel is leading you to destruction, and if I believe the great commission calls me to talk to people going to destruction about my understanding of the gospel, then how can I talk to you about that without making it sound like I'm speaking for God?

So, basically, you are telling me 'you are following a different Jesus, based on our opinion of scripture'?

Hmmm...that's incredibly underwhelming. And yet, refreshing. I'm not much for religions based on opinion with no claimed authority to speak for God or teach me His gospel, but it's nice to know.

And you beliefs aren't based on opinion? How are my beliefs based on opinion when yours aren't?

Besides, saying my beliefs are based on opinion is an over simplification. No respected theologian just looks at some english translation of a Bible verse and says 'I think it means . . .' My pastor occasionally gives his opinion during his sermons, like when a passage is a little vague or cryptic in it's message. So he included his opinion as a small part of a few sermons during his series on Revelation. But even while looking at that book, most of his teaching was not based on opinion. Exegesis is not opinion. When you do extensive research on the greek/hebrew language of a passage, the historical background of the issues discussed and the intended audience, the context of the rest of the book and other writings by that author, your conclusions probably won't be based on opinion. One figure I heard is Pastors are supposed to do about one hour of research for every one minute of their sermon. If they were just giving their opinion, they wouldn't need to spend 30-40 hours preparing a sermon on 3-5 verses.

No, i'm talking about studying the bible, pondering what it says specifically about authority, and comparing it to how the religion you espouse treats authority and teaching God's word.

And then following James 1:5 and asking God for the wisdom to know His will on the matter.

I've been studying the Bible for a while and I've never seen a verse that suggests we need to follow a Church with apostolic succession or priesthood authority.

I believe the bible talks a lot more about testing prophets and teachers a lot more than it talks about trusting authorities. Human authorities will always be fallible and not nearly as reliable as an exegetical approach to the bible. James was written to brethren who already had faith. It was about living out our faith, not about what faith to follow. The brethren are called to pray for wisdom about living out our faith. It does not tell us to ask what faith to follow.

As long as you don't do it from a position of 'knowing' you are doing God's will but just that you are sharing your opinions based on what you've read, i think it's great and appreciate the effort.

But I have faith that I know am doing God's will. Am I supposed to pretend I don't have that faith?

Aren't you sharing your opinions based on what you've heard and read?

Edited August 3, 2012 by Akboy

[KevinG]

I'm sharing my opinions based on direct revelation from God via the Holy Spirit and from His written word in the Bible and Book of Mormon.

I have never felt compelled to tell another follower of Christ they were following a false Christ or going to hell.

That is a damnable lie.

[thews]

We have read the same manual and come to different conclusions than you do.

The question remains... what gives you the right to claim we are not Christian?

Christians don't believe in Mormon doctrine and that's where the definition of "Christian" differs from Mormon doctrine. Jews accept half of Christian doctrine, but Christians aren't claiming Jews are Christians. To state that Mormonism is Christian, would imply that Christians accept Mormon doctrine, which they reject. I fyou consider the entire doctrine of the Mormon faith, the only common doctrine would be the bible. Since Joseph Smith changed the bible with the JST, that makes all of Mormon doctrine exclusive to the LDS faith. If you then state that the KJV is the "official" bible of the LDS faith, I would ask why? Why would a Mormon accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith, yet reject the JST? In a nutshell, it's not the label of who is or isn't "Christian" by definition, but what is a "Mormon" by definition and what doctrine that label encompasses. I've heard the arguments claiming Catholics are defined as a "Christian" faith, yet differ from other Christian faiths, but the doctrine is the same. When I was growing up Mormons were proud to be defined as "Mormon" by definition... why, when the entire Godhead is different, three distinct personages vs. Jesus is God in man, is the definition supposedly the same? It's not the same, the doctrine is not the same, and the foundation for Mormon doctrine was that God told Joseph Smith that all Christian religions were wrong. Doesn't these not so subtle differences warrant a different definition under the umbrella of what "Christianity" encompasses?

In your opinion, which part(s) of Mormon doctrine does Christianity share with LDS doctrine?

Edited August 3, 2012 by thews

[Flyonthewall]

Christians don't believe in Mormon doctrine and that's where the definition of "Christian" differs from Mormon doctrine. Jews accept half of Christian doctrine, but Christians aren't claiming Jews are Christians. To state that Mormonism is Christian, would imply that Christians accept Mormon doctrine, which they reject. I fyou consider the entire doctrine of the Mormon faith, the only common doctrine would be the bible. Since Joseph Smith changed the bible with the JST, that makes all of Mormon doctrine exclusive to the LDS faith. If you then state that the KJV is the "official" bible of the LDS faith, I would ask why? Why would a Mormon accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith, yet reject the JST? In a nutshell, it's not the label of who is or isn't "Christian" by definition, but what is a "Mormon" by definition and what doctrine that label encompasses. I've heard the arguments claiming Catholics are defined as a "Christian" faith, yet differ from other Christian faiths, but the doctrine is the same. When I was growing up Mormons were proud to be defined as "Mormon" by definition... why, when the entire Godhead is different, three distinct personages vs. Jesus is God in man, is the definition supposedly the same? It's not the same, the doctrine is not the same, and the foundation for Mormon doctrine was that God told Joseph Smith that all Christian religions were wrong. Doesn't these not so subtle differences warrant a different definition under the umbrella of what "Christianity" encompasses?

In your opinion, which part(s) of Mormon doctrine does Christianity share with LDS doctrine?

"The Prophet Joseph Smith confirmed the Savior’s central role in our doctrine in one definitive sentence: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

Is there anything in this statement that any other "Christian" disagrees with?

[bluebell]

Christians don't believe in Mormon doctrine and that's where the definition of "Christian" differs from Mormon doctrine.

That's your opinion. You don't speak for God though, do you?

What are we supposed to do? If I believe your gospel is leading you to destruction, and if I believe the great commission calls me to talk to people going to destruction about my understanding of the gospel, then how can I talk to you about that without making it sound like I'm speaking for God?

If you don't want people to assume you believe you are speaking for God, you have to preface such declarations with 'it's my opinion that...'

And you beliefs aren't based on opinion? How are my beliefs based on opinion when yours aren't?

My beliefs are based on the authority of the institution which teaches them, and the witness of the Holy Ghost.

Your's are based on your opinion (and the opinions of other men) about what the scriptures mean, right?

I'm not trying to insult you when I say your beliefs are your opinion. Unless you want to change your mind and claim that you do have the authority from God to tell me i'm wrong and that God has told you what you believe is true, i don't know how else to describe them.

Besides, saying my beliefs are based on opinion is an over simplification. No respected theologian just looks at some english translation of a Bible verse and says 'I think it means . . .' My pastor occasionally gives his opinion during his sermons, like when a passage is a little vague or cryptic in it's message. So he included his opinion as a small part of a few sermons during his series on Revelation. But even while looking at that book, most of his teaching was not based on opinion. Exegesis is not opinion.

It's an informed opinion, for sure. But it's opinion none-the-less.

When you do extensive research on the greek/hebrew language of a passage, the historical background of the issues discussed and the intended audience, the context of the rest of the book and other writings by that author, your conclusions probably won't be based on opinion.

Informed opinion, but still opinion. If it WASN'T opinion, then all of protestantism would agree with each other, right? Since each denomination has done exactly what you stated and yet still fight over whether or not baptism is necessesary for salvation, and should be by immersion or sprinkling, for example.

One figure I heard is Pastors are supposed to do about one hour of research for every one minute of their sermon. If they were just giving their opinion, they wouldn't need to spend 30-40 hours preparing a sermon on 3-5 verses.

David Koresh used to study the bible for hours every single day, but you don't really want to claim that the time he spent studying proves how correct his beliefs were, do you?

I've been studying the Bible for a while and I've never seen a verse that suggests we need to follow a Church with apostolic succession or priesthood authority.

Even though that's exactly the church that Christ Himself set up?

Human authorities will always be fallible and not nearly as reliable as an exegetical approach to the bible. James was written to brethren who already had faith. It was about living out our faith, not about what faith to follow. The brethren are called to pray for wisdom about living out our faith. It does not tell us to ask what faith to follow.

I didn't tell you to pray to ask what faith to follow, I said you should pray for wisdom that you are living your faith the way God wants you to.

But I have faith that I know am doing God's will. Am I supposed to pretend I don't have that faith?

If you knew you were doing God's will, you wouldn't need faith.

I know what you mean, however. I don't think you should pretend anything-and that includes pretending that you know what God thinks about my religion.

Aren't you sharing your opinions based on what you've heard and read?

I'm sharing my beliefs based on what the prophets and the Holy Ghost have taught me. It's an opinion in a sense, of course, but i believe it's infinitely more supported than yours is.

[altersteve]

In your opinion, which part(s) of Mormon doctrine does Christianity share with LDS doctrine?

"In my opinion," that's a very long list.

[Lachoneus]

In your opinion, which part(s) of Mormon doctrine does Christianity share with LDS doctrine?

In my opinion, because "Mormon doctrine" is "Christianity," they share 100% of their doctrines. Your opinion is obviously different. But it is only your opinion.